Episode #143: The Burma Act’s origins can be traced to before the coup, according to Michael Haack, a longtime advocate. Its goal was to provide support for civil society while limiting the power of the military. One of its major features was calling out the Rohingya genocide, but Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell feared it would reflect poorly on his close friend, Aung San Suu Kyi, who at that time was leading the country, and blocked the bill’s passage.
The final version of the Burma Act drew rare, almost unanimous bipartisan backing in the House, but it was again blocked by McConnell. So a decision was made to include it as an Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a bill that funds the US military and has passed annually since 1961. Haack notes that the language of the Burma Act specifically allows for only non-lethal aid.
Haack emphasizes the groundbreaking nature of the bill, in that it lists many of the Ethnic Resistance Organizations (ERO) by name, along with the NUG and PDFs. Yet advocacy for continued attention to the crisis in Myanmar remains challenging. The Burmese diaspora’s failure to effectively coordinate their efforts with local legislators has been an on-going issue. Haack suggests a two-pronged approach to advocacy work. One is cultivating relationships and building trust with influential people and groups. The other is kicking off a well-coordinated media campaign, ideally with a compelling figure at its center. However, Myanmar’s ethnic groups now have their own direct lines of communication to the West—which was until recently not the case—making what were once Bamar-centric conversations and policy in the US far more complicated. Not only are past histories being contested, so also are visions of what a federal democracy even means.
In the end, though, Haack notes that “Congress runs on winning campaigns,” and so for him, the best thing about the Burma Act is that…it (finally) passed!